Perfect description of today's Right-Wing wackos

[eagle1462010]

Lol! You guys make up some dumb shit. Thanks for the laugh.

"You guys"? Charlie Sykes is a conservative talk show host in Wisconsin, buddies with Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Reince Priebus.

Son of a bitch backed Evan McMullin. He can go straight to RINO hell. Don't ever try to snow anyone that this asshole is a conservative.

So, in your world Evan McMullin and Charlie Sykes are not conservatives, but Donald Trump is????

You obviously are ignorant of the McMullin platform.

I'm quite familiar with the Trump platform and he's not a conservative.

By any definition of conservative McMullin fits that description more than Trump.

Unless you're going by Cereal Killer's definition of conservatism, in my sigline.

He's a Nationalist.

The New Trumpist Nationalism | RealClearPolitics

Bill Ayers, Cornell West and other members of the group Resist Fascism recently took out a full page ad in The New York Times in which they invoked Nazi Germany, Hitler and xenophobic nationalism to denounce Trump. “No! In the Name of Humanity We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America!” they proclaimed.

Less than a week after the election, Barack Obama had already warned that “we are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism, or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an ‘us’ and a ‘them’.” “The 20th century was a bloodbath,” he added.

Trump’s nationalism, however, is fundamentally different from earlier volkish nationalisms. For one, it does not define the nation in racial or religious terms. Not once in the campaign did Trump imply, much less say, that America is a white country or a Christian nation. In fact, as he said in his inaugural address whose underlying theme was solidarity: “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.”

At home, Trump’s targets are the elites from both parties who undercut American workers to advance their globalist agenda. He does not look at the country through the usual Left-Right prism, but through a populist lens that pits a corrupt elite against ordinary Americans—“the forgotten men and women of our country” in his Rooseveltian retelling. In so doing, Trump also rejects the divisiveness of identity politics and affirms the unity of the American people.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Ad................By radicals.............of the left.

https://refusefascism.org/wp-content/uploads/nyt-no-16-1-4.pdf

 

[OKTexas]

The OP made it a partisan issue.


.

So what?

Are you unable to get past that?

Yeah, when you accuse others of doing exactly what the OP did form the beginning, as if they're doing something wrong.


.

You misunderstand.

I'm not trying to say that making it partisan is "wrong", I'm just trying my damnedest to actually discuss the article in the OP.

The article isn't partisan.

Should I quote partisan aspects of the article linked in the OP, I assume there's no need to do it since you said you read it. The author uses a broad brush to paint most on the right with some commonality with Jones, which is far from the truth. But truth is rarely reflected in OP/EDs any more.


.

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

 

[BluesLegend]

This is from a Charlie Sykes Op-Ed about Alex Jones:


Mr. Jones, Matt Drudge and President Trump himself have played a role in reviving what Richard Hofstadter called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” Reread in light of today’s politics, Hofstadter’s 1964 essay seems eerily prescient.

The paranoid spokesman, he wrote, saw the world “in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point.”

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”

Since the situation is so dire and the stakes so high, the paranoid spokesman is not interested in half-measures. “He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician,” Hofstadter wrote.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/sunday/the-danger-of-ignoring-alex-jones.html

You're accusing Republicans of being paranoid? Really?

^^^ top post of 2017 candidate well done

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So what?

Are you unable to get past that?

Yeah, when you accuse others of doing exactly what the OP did form the beginning, as if they're doing something wrong.


.

You misunderstand.

I'm not trying to say that making it partisan is "wrong", I'm just trying my damnedest to actually discuss the article in the OP.

The article isn't partisan.

Should I quote partisan aspects of the article linked in the OP, I assume there's no need to do it since you said you read it. The author uses a broad brush to paint most on the right with some commonality with Jones, which is far from the truth. But truth is rarely reflected in OP/EDs any more.


.

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

 

[bripat9643]

Look at the title of this thread, numskull. Tell me that isn't partisan. The article accuses Republicans of being paranoid. Tell me that isn't true.

Do you actually think you're fooling anyone?

You believe that Republicans are right-wing whackos? I don't.

I believe that right-wing whackos are right-wing whackos, and Republicans are just selfish greedy assholes.

The author of your article believes that, but so do you. That's why you posted the article: to smear all right-wingers as paranoid.

You'll never see a similar article in the New York Times about left-wingers.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, when you accuse others of doing exactly what the OP did form the beginning, as if they're doing something wrong.


.

You misunderstand.

I'm not trying to say that making it partisan is "wrong", I'm just trying my damnedest to actually discuss the article in the OP.

The article isn't partisan.

Should I quote partisan aspects of the article linked in the OP, I assume there's no need to do it since you said you read it. The author uses a broad brush to paint most on the right with some commonality with Jones, which is far from the truth. But truth is rarely reflected in OP/EDs any more.


.

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Allow me to refresh your memory:

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”​

 

[bripat9643]

You seem to have some serious reading comprehension issues.

Why are you trying so hard to make this a partisan issue?

Why are you and shithole pretending it isn't?

Because we actually read the fucking article!

Jesus Christ, you're a moron.

And THAT'S why I have him on ignore!

Right, you have me on ignore because I don't fall for your sleazy scams.

No, still about you being a retard who can't back up any of your bullshit.

You're the only one spouting any bullshit in this thread.

 

[OKTexas]

And not necessarily for the better. When the courts take it upon themselves to ignore black letter law and are supported by politicians we are no longer a nation of laws and disintegration of the republic is inevitable. The short cuts you condone will be the undoing of the country.


.

Whether various changes are for "better" or "worse" will be determined by historians down the line.

Yet the changes still occurred. There's no going back.

That's where you're wrong.


.

No, I'm not.

Change rarely ever goes backwards, no matter how hard you guys try.

Yet the hysterics on the left say different.


.

Like who?

You keep mentioning "the left" as some homogenous entity, but you seem to always neglect to show any examples.

LMAO, what rock have you been living under the last two years. Lefties were calling for Trumps impeachment even before his inauguration.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You misunderstand.

I'm not trying to say that making it partisan is "wrong", I'm just trying my damnedest to actually discuss the article in the OP.

The article isn't partisan.

Should I quote partisan aspects of the article linked in the OP, I assume there's no need to do it since you said you read it. The author uses a broad brush to paint most on the right with some commonality with Jones, which is far from the truth. But truth is rarely reflected in OP/EDs any more.


.

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Allow me to refresh your memory:

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”​

If you had read the article, you'd know that quote is from a different Op-Ed, written 50 years ago.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Whether various changes are for "better" or "worse" will be determined by historians down the line.

Yet the changes still occurred. There's no going back.

That's where you're wrong.


.

No, I'm not.

Change rarely ever goes backwards, no matter how hard you guys try.

Yet the hysterics on the left say different.


.

Like who?

You keep mentioning "the left" as some homogenous entity, but you seem to always neglect to show any examples.

LMAO, what rock have you been living under the last two years. Lefties were calling for Trumps impeachment even before his inauguration.


.

Impeaching Trump wouldn't make change go backwards.

 

[bripat9643]

Should I quote partisan aspects of the article linked in the OP, I assume there's no need to do it since you said you read it. The author uses a broad brush to paint most on the right with some commonality with Jones, which is far from the truth. But truth is rarely reflected in OP/EDs any more.


.

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Allow me to refresh your memory:

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”​

If you had read the article, you'd know that quote is from a different Op-Ed, written 50 years ago.

The article quoted it. That's all we need to know.

 

[bripat9643]

That's where you're wrong.


.

No, I'm not.

Change rarely ever goes backwards, no matter how hard you guys try.

Yet the hysterics on the left say different.


.

Like who?

You keep mentioning "the left" as some homogenous entity, but you seem to always neglect to show any examples.

LMAO, what rock have you been living under the last two years. Lefties were calling for Trumps impeachment even before his inauguration.


.

Impeaching Trump wouldn't make change go backwards.

Anytime Democrats win society regresses to a more primitive form where the inmates are running the asylum.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Allow me to refresh your memory:

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”​

If you had read the article, you'd know that quote is from a different Op-Ed, written 50 years ago.

The article quoted it. That's all we need to know.

You sure do love to wear your ignorance as a badge, don't you?

 

[OKTexas]

If you did read it (which I don't believe, since you've refused to actually discuss any of it's contents), you missed the point.

You want to feel like a victim, so you see the article as an attack on you, personally - instead of understanding that the point of the article is that framing every issue as life-or-death, and a war between good and evil is problematic, whether it's on the left or the right.

The man who shot Scalise echoed the rhetoric of Alex Jones and the like, from the other side - and that's the problem, the rhetoric. The ideological mindset that everything is an all-or-nothing war rather than a difference of opinion.

What is this profound point you imagine we missed? Are you actually trying to blame the Scalise shooting on right wingers?

Who says everything is all-or-nothing if not the left? Remember when they said pulling out of the Paris agreement meant the end of the world?

You seem to have some serious reading comprehension issues.

Why are you trying so hard to make this a partisan issue?

Why are you and shithole pretending it isn't?

Because we actually read the fucking article!

Jesus Christ, you're a moron.

And THAT'S why I have him on ignore!

Funny, you responded to his post, I didn't think you could see ignored posters comments.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What is this profound point you imagine we missed? Are you actually trying to blame the Scalise shooting on right wingers?

Who says everything is all-or-nothing if not the left? Remember when they said pulling out of the Paris agreement meant the end of the world?

You seem to have some serious reading comprehension issues.

Why are you trying so hard to make this a partisan issue?

Why are you and shithole pretending it isn't?

Because we actually read the fucking article!

Jesus Christ, you're a moron.

And THAT'S why I have him on ignore!

Funny, you responded to his post, I didn't think you could see ignored posters comments.


.

If you read through the whole thread, you'll see the whole story.

 

[bripat9643]

What is this profound point you imagine we missed? Are you actually trying to blame the Scalise shooting on right wingers?

Who says everything is all-or-nothing if not the left? Remember when they said pulling out of the Paris agreement meant the end of the world?

You seem to have some serious reading comprehension issues.

Why are you trying so hard to make this a partisan issue?

Why are you and shithole pretending it isn't?

Because we actually read the fucking article!

Jesus Christ, you're a moron.

And THAT'S why I have him on ignore!

Funny, you responded to his post, I didn't think you could see ignored posters comments.


.

He can see them if someone else responds to one of my posts.

 

[bripat9643]

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Allow me to refresh your memory:

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”​

If you had read the article, you'd know that quote is from a different Op-Ed, written 50 years ago.

The article quoted it. That's all we need to know.

You sure do love to wear your ignorance as a badge, don't you?

"Ignorance?" Did the article quote it or not?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Allow me to refresh your memory:

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”​

If you had read the article, you'd know that quote is from a different Op-Ed, written 50 years ago.

The article quoted it. That's all we need to know.

You sure do love to wear your ignorance as a badge, don't you?

"Ignorance?" Did the article quote it or not?

It did - and if not for your willful choice of ignorance, perhaps you'd understand why.

 

[OKTexas]

to shovel ready no jobs.

What do you mean no jobs? The stimulus hired millions of people.

Temporary jobs..part time jobs and in the government..


.

A lot of them were direct benefits to small businesses. It was designed that way. Remember, it was a Green stimulus?

Through that stimulus grant to my city I was able to purchase a new GE Hybrid energy water heater ($1430.00 at Lowes, now $899) and receive back from the city $1200.00 in credit on my energy bill, which meant I didn't get an electric bill for 5 months. Pretty great.

One catch: I had to hire a local plumber to professionally install it. This was by design in the stimulus: stimulate business for local companies. They charged me an outrageous $400, but look what I got: professional installation and a new 50 gallon water heater that costs an EnergyGuide average of $198 per year instead of the $600-$800 per year with my old Kenmore. All for $630.

And GE sold another cutting edge tech water heater. Helping their profits.

And Lowes had another water heater sale. Helping their profits.

And my local plumber had a $400 job on the books. Helping their profits.

And that's the 2009 Stimulus Act in a nutshell.

So why did you need the welfare? You could have done the job yourself justifiably if it would save you so much. Why did you need the nanny state to prompt you to do something that made economic sense? I replace my water heater for $400 with a new one and didn't need anyone else, GE and Lowes still made their profits, no plumper involved.


.

Because I was able to buy a new hybrid water heater for $230!

Even counting the installation it was a steal.

I wasn't in the market for a water heater until this deal, then it made perfect sense. And it stimulated the economy, locally and nationally.

Any purchase stimulates the economy, you said it made economic sense without the welfare. So why didn't you do it before?


.